Jump to content

The Warriors WDoW


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You might as well called yours fake :P. main goal was obviously to keep RE away from the flags.

 

Because that was our last war, which you obviously inferred with the statement "bunch of micros". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might as well called yours fake :P. main goal was obviously to keep RE away from the flags.

 

I'm pretty content comparing our wars to your fake skirmish.  I'm still not sure why everything you say is wrong, you would think eventually the odds would catch up with you just by chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to like War Doves because they're not complaining, seems like they enjoy a good 'ol fashioned war  :popcorn:

 

Then again, maybe they're not complaining because they have lots of others doing it for them. 

 

Seeing some good counters so far, can't wait until tonight  :ehm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to like War Doves because they're not complaining, seems like they enjoy a good 'ol fashioned war  :popcorn:

 

Then again, maybe they're not complaining because they have lots of others doing it for them. 

 

Seeing some good counters so far, can't wait until tonight  :ehm:

 

From my nation bio:

Personal message provided on 4/9/2014: Everything. Must. Burn.

 

 

^That includes me.  :nuke:

Edited by Samwise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to like War Doves because they're not complaining, seems like they enjoy a good 'ol fashioned war  :popcorn:
 
Then again, maybe they're not complaining because they have lots of others doing it for them. 
 
Seeing some good counters so far, can't wait until tonight  :ehm:

when was the last legit war your bunch ever declared.... go on I'll wait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know, right? They should have brought someone else along. 

 

f0aa19e412b463ccd39c436b355c82d8.jpg

 

ROFL Say what you want about War Doves, but we provide quality entertainment for all ages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies to my current opponents - I've had to put CN on the backburner lately due to RL matters that I won't go into specific details of on a public forum. Hopefully I'll get it together very soon, however. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies to my current opponents - I've had to put CN on the backburner lately due to RL matters that I won't go into specific details of on a public forum. Hopefully I'll get it together very soon, however. :)

 

You are still fired >:|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've got something for you, Turtledove:

 

denied.gif

You both fail as WD gov;

 

ONE  Warrior has actually managed to avoid Anarchy.

 

Unacceptable. :smug:

Edited by ARCHEIN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You both fail as WD gov;

 

ONE  Warrior has actually managed to avoid Anarchy.

 

Unacceptable. :smug:

 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqXaJqqp2SI]Here at War Doves, we like to take our time[/url]

 

But it's coming...

 

soon_meme_collection_640_04.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You both fail as WD gov;
 
ONE  Warrior has actually managed to avoid Anarchy.
 
Unacceptable. :smug:

I'm still catching up on lost time, give me a break. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, I'm a little confused guys...

 

It seems a lot of people are complaining that an alliance might engage in a war it is pretty certain it can win.

 

As if this were somehow dishonorable, like an 8th grader bullying a  kindergartener, when in reality this is a nation simulation game, and only a stupid or desperate alliance of nations would EVER attack an enemy they weren't absolutely certain it could beat. It also seems a rather manipulative concept to take the attitude that people who are doing better at the game should not attack people doing worse at the game in order to help their own nations. Am I missing some major philosophical concept in this game?

 

It seems like if we want a world where everything is "fair" and wars are fought, if at all, like in-tournament duels between statistically matched opponents,  we shouldn't have a "war" button but a "model UN" button.

 

The way the game is set up, however, there should be only the following considerations made to determine whether a war is justified, at least in TE:

 

1. Is the war in my alliance's best interest?

2. Is the war in my nation's best interest?

 

If you pick your wars by asking "is the war in my OPPONENT'S best interest" you're not honorable, you're an idiot. And rather than putting yourself in the best position to win the game,  you are screwing yourselves by trying to make yourselves look abstractly "fair".

 

If you're playing chess against a vastly inferior opponent, and you deliberately make a less than optimal move to "give them a chance", you're insulting them. If you're already losing a chess game, and your opponent takes your queen, and you complain that this is unfair because they were already doing better than you, you're not enforcing fairness, you're being a sore loser. That is essentially what people who complain about unequal wars are doing. If you don't like the way the mechanics of the game allow people to attack inferior or vulnerable opponents, then find a different game, don't create a false concept of pixelated honor to try and sociopathically manipulate the people who are winning into not taking advantage of existing game mechanics that have been consciously designed to allow them to further enhance their position.

 

PS: the only reason I'M in anarchy is because two of the nations I'm fighting apparently had WC's big enough to buy MP's and summarily nuke me while I was out and about. Which I must say was pretty clever, although I imagine more expensive than the damage you caused.

Edited by John More Dread
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, I'm a little confused guys...

 

It seems a lot of people are complaining that an alliance might engage in a war it is pretty certain it can win.

 

As if this were somehow dishonorable, like an 8th grader bullying a  kindergartener, when in reality this is a nation simulation game, and only a stupid or desperate alliance of nations would EVER attack an enemy they weren't absolutely certain it could beat. It also seems a rather manipulative concept to take the attitude that people who are doing better at the game should not attack people doing worse at the game in order to help their own nations. Am I missing some major philosophical concept in this game?

 

It seems like if we want a world where everything is "fair" and wars are fought, if at all, like in-tournament duels between statistically matched opponents,  we shouldn't have a "war" button but a "model UN" button.

 

The way the game is set up, however, there should be only the following considerations made to determine whether a war is justified, at least in TE:

 

1. Is the war in my alliance's best interest?

2. Is the war in my nation's best interest?

 

If you pick your wars by asking "is the war in my OPPONENT'S best interest" you're not honorable, you're an idiot. And rather than putting yourself in the best position to win the game,  you are screwing yourselves by trying to make yourselves look abstractly "fair".

 

If you're playing chess against a vastly inferior opponent, and you deliberately make a less than optimal move to "give them a chance", you're insulting them. If you're already losing a chess game, and your opponent takes your queen, and you complain that this is unfair because they were already doing better than you, you're not enforcing fairness, you're being a sore loser. That is essentially what people who complain about unequal wars are doing. If you don't like the way the mechanics of the game allow people to attack inferior or vulnerable opponents, then find a different game, don't create a false concept of pixelated honor to try and sociopathically manipulate the people who are winning into not taking advantage of existing game mechanics that have been consciously designed to allow them to further enhance their position.

 

PS: the only reason I'M in anarchy is because two of the nations I'm fighting apparently had WC's big enough to buy MP's and summarily nuke me while I was out and about. Which I must say was pretty clever, although I imagine more expensive than the damage you caused.

A heavyweight boxer who plans to  fight a lighter weight has cleary planned to win. Nothing wrong with that, if you do not value your planning, skill,  time investment ,etc etc.

Yet, what will the heavyweight actually have accomplished in winning?  Merely the mundane and the expected, the results of a boring and tedious bout.

 

They either have no confidence in their ability or are simply lazy, perhaps with egos in need of inflation, by initiating a substantial down declare when more balanced options exsisted.

 

Of course, every once in a while, the unexpected occurs: the heavyweight gets knocked on his ass, as current stats clearly demonstrate.

 

A clear conclussion to be found here; downdeclares are low reward/high risk proposistions. Better choices exist.

Edited by ARCHEIN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ... We won, right?

 

The bellyaching, and the "unfair" posts are for naught -- the statistically larger Warriors brought their clean, new tanks and uniforms and left in poopy rags with spare screws falling from their holey pockets ... 

 

War Doves are always prepared, always ready. 

 

xdw7SOg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, I'm a little confused guys...
 
It seems a lot of people are complaining that an alliance might engage in a war it is pretty certain it can win.
 
As if this were somehow dishonorable, like an 8th grader bullying a  kindergartener, when in reality this is a nation simulation game, and only a stupid or desperate alliance of nations would EVER attack an enemy they weren't absolutely certain it could beat. It also seems a rather manipulative concept to take the attitude that people who are doing better at the game should not attack people doing worse at the game in order to help their own nations. Am I missing some major philosophical concept in this game?
 
It seems like if we want a world where everything is "fair" and wars are fought, if at all, like in-tournament duels between statistically matched opponents,  we shouldn't have a "war" button but a "model UN" button.
 
The way the game is set up, however, there should be only the following considerations made to determine whether a war is justified, at least in TE:
 
1. Is the war in my alliance's best interest?
2. Is the war in my nation's best interest?
 
If you pick your wars by asking "is the war in my OPPONENT'S best interest" you're not honorable, you're an idiot. And rather than putting yourself in the best position to win the game,  you are screwing yourselves by trying to make yourselves look abstractly "fair".
 
If you're playing chess against a vastly inferior opponent, and you deliberately make a less than optimal move to "give them a chance", you're insulting them. If you're already losing a chess game, and your opponent takes your queen, and you complain that this is unfair because they were already doing better than you, you're not enforcing fairness, you're being a sore loser. That is essentially what people who complain about unequal wars are doing. If you don't like the way the mechanics of the game allow people to attack inferior or vulnerable opponents, then find a different game, don't create a false concept of pixelated honor to try and sociopathically manipulate the people who are winning into not taking advantage of existing game mechanics that have been consciously designed to allow them to further enhance their position.

 
I agree with your logic on certain points. Personally, I will never approve a war for War Doves where winning is impossible. That doesn't mean that the stats have to be in our favor, that means that I have studied each and every one of my members and I know their limitations, their schedules, and I know how they will react under pressure. Take Kurdanak for example. I can assign him 3 updeclares and I know that he will rise to the challenge every time. There is no fear of losing his own pixels programmed into him like some people. Is everyone in War Doves a Kurdanak? No, but that's where I, as their MoD, can use the knowledge I know about them and assign them accordingly. Everybody has different limitations, and it's my job to know them.
 
But there is a difference between declaring a war where victory is certain, and declaring a war where you introduce competition. Does it make me an idiot to declare a war where it's possible that we could lose? I don't think so, but then again I hear ignorance is bliss. I think it would be rather boring if we all just attacked the lesser alliances. There would also be a lot less nations and alliances if so, and Admin has already threatened to remove TE due to lack of interest.
 
But War Doves never complained when Warriors declared this war. We knew the numbers were against us, but we've been downdeclared before by better alliances than Warriors, and we've won. What were we going to do? Bitch and moan while watching our nations burn to the ground? No. War Doves don't fight for themselves, they fight for each other. This is why no matter what the odds, we will continue on until there's no one else on the War Doves AA. Winning wasn't our goal when we accepted your challenge, it was what our goal always is: Protect each other, because that's the reason you join an alliance - Protection.
 

PS: the only reason I'M in anarchy is because two of the nations I'm fighting apparently had WC's big enough to buy MP's and summarily nuke me while I was out and about. Which I must say was pretty clever, although I imagine more expensive than the damage you caused.


There's less than 2 weeks before the end of round wars start. The purchases we made during the war were not only to inflict damage upon you, but to also prepare for those wars as well, taking into consideration that our entire nuclear arsenal would likely be exhausted during this war . I know we boasted in here about a 100% Warriors anarchy rate, and I agree anarchy isn't everything, but anarchy is still anarchy and stopping your offensive while we continued to counter was part of our strategy that allowed us to overtake you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the first set of rounds expired at update, there no longer exists a state of war between The Warriors and War Doves. While The Warriors could tally up victories on several fronts, the overall victors were the War Doves for this war.

 

Now to address this down-declare/up-declare issue. Numbers are not everything. As has been proven here and has been proven in many wars between other alliances, the true victor will be the one who is best able to cooperate to take down their opponents. Even an enemy whose nation is 150% NS can be taken down by consecutive, coordinated attacks by a group of smaller nations. This is especially true if you throw nukes into the mix. Only when an alliance is able to function with near 100% coordination should they attempt to up-declare. To do otherwise is suicidal. Our ability to coordinate effectively was called into question after the battle with NDO and so we chose an opponent whose overall numeric strength was at or slightly below our own.

 

The decision to attack War Doves after our defeat against NDO was designed to test our members ability to coordinate effectively. I put together the target list based on the availability of our members to encourage coordinated attacks. In the end, that backfired because we did not have enough of a blitz presence to anarchy more than a handful of War Doves. It did not help that most of the War Doves were armed to the teeth when we attacked. In retrospect, I should have waved off the attack but technical difficulties made that impossible.

 

So yes, looking strictly at the numbers, this war should have favored The Warriors. However, considering The Warriors performance against NDO and WD's war history, I expected that our nations would be pushed to the limit; coordinate or die. Unfortunately, several nations chose the latter or were instantly anarchied leaving their wing-men to fight alone. With that said, those who did fight together, performed admirably.

 

We will be looking over the data from this war and making some adjustments. Thanks for putting up a solid fight.

 

Patton-movie-06.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this thread is missing is stats - and well, that's shameful IMO. These stats are from the stats downloads, so from 6 PM the evening of the blitz:
 

War Doves Stats

Total Nations: 25

Total Nation Strength: 276,238

Avg. NS: 11,050

Infra: 49,448

Tech: 6,756

Nukes: 59

Nuclear Nations: 8

 

Nations above 20k NS - 3

Nations above 15k NS - 2

Nations above 10k NS - 4

Nations above 5k NS - 12

Nations below 5k NS - 4

 

Warriors Stats

Total Nations: 19

Total Nation Strength: 305,541

Avg. NS: 16,081

Infra: 46,271

Tech: 6,944

Nukes: 132

Nuclear Nations: 13

 

Nations above 20k NS - 6

Nations above 15k NS - 5

Nations above 10k NS - 3

Nations above 5k NS - 6

Nations below 5k NS - 0

 

========== Post War ==========

 

War Doves Stats

Total Nations: 24

Total Nation Strength: 173,773

Avg. NS: 7,241

Infra: 31,938

Tech: 4,482

Nukes: 3

 

Warriors Stats

Total Nations: 18

Total Nation Strength: 130,051

Avg. NS: 7,225

Infra: 18,706

Tech: 3,276

Nukes: 80

 

Total Infra/Tech/Land NS Losses: 216,000 NS
War Doves Dealt ~60% of the damages: 128,156 NS

 

 

[hr]

 

Now to address this down-declare/up-declare issue. Numbers are not everything. As has been proven here and has been proven in many wars between other alliances, the true victor will be the one who is best able to cooperate to take down their opponents. Even an enemy whose nation is 150% NS can be taken down by consecutive, coordinated attacks by a group of smaller nations. This is especially true if you throw nukes into the mix. Only when an alliance is able to function with near 100% coordination should they attempt to up-declare. To do otherwise is suicidal.


It is easy for you to say that numbers are not everything when you declared this war because the numbers were in your favor. By all accounts, you should have won this war and batting cleanup by day 4. Your nations on average were much bigger and many stocked with more than a handful of nukes. In fact, you had more than 50% more nations that were nuclear than we did. This statement is blatantly false:

Our ability to coordinate effectively was called into question after the battle with NDO and so we chose an opponent whose overall numeric strength was at or slightly below our own.


While we're on the topic of NDO, you also downdeclared them. Yes, they coordinated against you and from what I could tell they were beating you. That is until they ran out of nukes because you declared on them with triple their nuke numbers. You also never saw them complain once.
 

The decision to attack War Doves after our defeat against NDO was designed to test our members ability to coordinate effectively. I put together the target list based on the availability of our members to encourage coordinated attacks. In the end, that backfired because we did not have enough of a blitz presence to anarchy more than a handful of War Doves. It did not help that most of the War Doves were armed to the teeth when we attacked. In retrospect, I should have waved off the attack but technical difficulties made that impossible.


I can understand wanting to test your members, and choosing a softer opponent because you're not sure what they can do quite yet. But you skipped over 2 alliances softer than you to hit us. I understand that literally any alliance left to declare would have been classified as a downdeclare, so you really had no choice but to downdeclare, but there were opponents statistically closer to you than War Doves. 

 

As for your blitz, no, it wasn't the best, as you only ended up putting 2 WD nations into anarchy. However, that doesn't only reflect on you, but War Doves as well. You state we were militarized when you attacked. That is official War Doves policy. I spend a great deal of time reminding people how important our individual nations defenses are. So I wouldn't really put too much blame on yourself. 
 

So yes, looking strictly at the numbers, this war should have favored The Warriors. However, considering The Warriors performance against NDO and WD's war history, I expected that our nations would be pushed to the limit; coordinate or die. Unfortunately, several nations chose the latter or were instantly anarchied leaving their wing-men to fight alone. With that said, those who did fight together, performed admirably.
 
We will be looking over the data from this war and making some adjustments. Thanks for putting up a solid fight.


This is really the only statement you should have made. It's what makes me want to believe that there wasn't any hard feelings meant. War Doves wishes you well, and good luck for the remainder of the round. o/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B-)

 

          Sam, I have to give it up to you... you are the Coordination Master on TE...! :frantic:

 

 And your  Pigeons showed to be a very hard meat to eat...!  :lol1: 

 

A well fought Victory against a Seriously strong contender...!  :popcorn:

 

Now, if you could come out from  TE-PD's shadow and influence...  less Paul, less OP....  WD could be the REAL

 

Policing Corps of this realm!   :excl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B-)

 

          Sam, I have to give it up to you... you are the Coordination Master on TE...! :frantic:

 

 And your  Pigeons showed to be a very hard meat to eat...!  :lol1:

 

A well fought Victory against a Seriously strong contender...!  :popcorn:

 

Now, if you could come out from  TE-PD's shadow and influence...  less Paul, less OP....  WD could be the REAL

 

Policing Corps of this realm!   :excl:

 

I'm not sure why you are infatuated with us, but you should really give it up.  TEPD has been around for less then 1 round, and somehow we have hijacked War Doves into under our shadow, all while coordinating zero wars or anything with them?

 

You really need to worry more about your own alliance, and set of secret allies, and stop accusing us of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...